Barefoot Beach Access

[fluffy]

Barefoot Beach staff are now charging people not registered at their resort for use of the former "Airport Beach" area, even if those people simply wnat to walk through the property. This has raised some hackles on local social media pages as those collecting the fees are not recognizing that their property rights end at the high water mark and anything below that is crown land, and open to public use. When asked, the resort representatives state that the fees will go towards upkeep and maintenance of the beach area. That area of the beach, actually on PIB land, had been traditionally leased by the City of Penticton and left for public use but that lease was not renewed and is now held by the Barefoot Beach resort.

I wonder if there's a little bit of a slap-down coming for the resort owners. Didn't Kelowna recently reassert "public" ownership of lakefront land below the high water mark?

[Queen K]

I sense a real community battle brewing. Spidy senses going full blast here...

[fluffy]

If so, it will be a battle of public opinion. Somehow I can't see the resort, City Councilor Max Picton's business, making such a potentially controversial move without checking out the legalities involved. The laws surrounding such things should be fresh in his mind after the row over the nude beach at Three Mile. Of course the issue is entangled even further by the fact that Airport Beach is locatee owned PIB land under lease to the resort.

[fall]

With so many other beaches around not really sure why anyone would want to go to that one if not staying there. It is owned by PIB, guess they can do what they want and charge access if they like.
I don't think it was traditionally leased by the city was it?
Used to be another campground before barefoot.
They had their boat rental shack and a few others set up on the beach.
The beach could use some maintenance though, it is overgrown with weeds.

[southy]

With so many other beaches around not really sure why anyone would want to go to that one if not staying there. It is owned by PIB, guess they can do what they want and charge access if they like.
I don't think it was traditionally leased by the city was it?
Used to be another campground before barefoot.
They had their boat rental shack and a few others set up on the beach.
The beach could use some maintenance though, it is overgrown with weeds.

If that is the case then I wonder who maintained it previously? Was it the PIB or city? I have never seen it look this bad - why?

[Merry]

What happens if an unregistered guest is walking the "public" part of the beach and refuses to pay the fee? Because I don't see how the resort owners can force them to pay, and if they try to physically remove them from a public place that would likely be assault. So why don't people just simply refuse to pay?

[fall]

What happens if an unregistered guest is walking the "public" part of the beach and refuses to pay the fee? Because I don't see how the resort owners can force them to pay, and if they try to physically remove them from a public place that would likely be assault. So why don't people just simply refuse to pay?

It is not a public place.

[Merry]

I thought the part below the high water mark is considered public.

[fall]

If that is the case then I wonder who maintained it previously? Was it the PIB or city? I have never seen it look this bad - why?

It has always looked pretty bad in my opinion.
Used to be popular with boats pulling up on shore and hanging out, not so much anymore.
Crappy location, highway right next to it and air traffic.
That beach sucks.

[fall]

I thought the part below the high water mark is considered public.

Doesn't leave people with a lot of room.
Wonder how that would work at the WFN private beach in West Kelowna?

[LANDM]

I thought the part below the high water mark is considered public.

It's still under water the last time I checked.

[Merry]

I don't live in Penticton so I'm not familiar with the beach under discussion. But based on what's been said about it, I have to wonder why anyone would want to spend time on it in the first place, because it doesn't sound like a very nice, well maintained space. Are there really so many people walking across it that the owner's felt it was a big issue? Or have they simply decided to try to make it a big issue for reasons we don't know about?

Knowing how high the lake is right now, I tend to think that LandM is correct in saying that the "public" part of this beach is still underwater. But, if and when it isn't, I don't see how the resort owners can fine someone for walking on it. And, if I lived in Penticton, I'd put my theory to the test the minute the water levels go down. Because it seems to me that these new resort owners are picking a fight they can't really win (unless people are walking above the high water mark, which they must be if they're doing it right now).

Maybe the simplest solution would be for the owners to put up a sign indicating where the high water mark is, and explaining that all the land above it is private.

[XT225]

If that is the case then I wonder who maintained it previously? Was it the PIB or city? I have never seen it look this bad - why?

I believe that the city USED to lease it, then the Locatee decided they wanted it back for something "bigger and better" (that never happened, by the way). The following year, the Locatee paid the city to maintain it (again, I believe that to be true); but this year appears that nobody is looking after it properly. Tis quite the mess.

[Merry]

Does the city have any sort of "tidy premises" bylaw that they could use to get the space cleaned up?

[XT225]

Does the city have any sort of "tidy premises" bylaw that they could use to get the space cleaned up?

Doesn't apply here; its Locatee land; nothing to do with the City.